Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.

“Wherefore also, to those that ask the wisdom that is with us, we are to hold out things suitable, that with the greatest possible ease they may, through their own ideas, be likely to arrive at faith in the truth. For "I became all things to all men, that I might gain all men." Since also "the rain" of the divine grace is sent down "on the just and the unjust." "Is He the God of the Jews only, and not also of the Gentiles? Yes, also of the Gentiles: if indeed He is one God," exclaims the noble apostle.”

“Is not all humankind one flock of God? Is not the same God both Lord and Shepherd of all nations? Tell me, is not all mankind one flock of God? Is not the same God both Lord and Shepherd of the universal nations? Who more "perishes" from God than the heathen, so long as he "errs? "Who is more "re-sought" by God than the heathen, when he is recalled by Christ? In fact, it is among heathens that this order finds antecedent place; if, that is, Christians are not otherwise made out of heathens than by being first "lost," and "re-sought" by God, and "carried back" by Christ.”

“"Is He the God of the Jews only?" As if he said, On what foot does it then seem to you amiss that every man should be saved? Is God partial? So showing from this, that in wishing to flout the Gentiles, they are rather offering an insult to God's glory, if, that is, they would not allow Him to be the God of all. But if He is of all, then He taketh care of all; and if He care for all, then He saveth all alike by faith. And this is why he says, "Is He the God of the Jews only? is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." For He is not partial as the fables of the Gentiles (cf. Ov. Tr. I. ii. 5. sqq) are, but common to all, and One...”

“After the Apostle has shown that the Jews do not go before the Gentiles, neither with respect to the state of guilt nor with respect to the state of righteousness, here he draws the conclusion he intended, namely by excluding their boasting by which they preferred themselves to the Gentiles. And concerning this he does three things: first he sets forth the exclusion of this boasting; second, the cause of the exclusion, at the words "by what law"; third he shows the manner in which it is excluded, at the words "for we reckon," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he poses the question, saying: since you, O Jew, are commonly under sin just as the Gentile is, and since the Gentile is justified through faith just as you are, where is your boasting? That is, the boasting by which you glory in the law, as was said above, and by which you wish to prefer yourself to the Gentile. 1 Corinthians 5:6: "Your glorying is not good." Galatians 5:26: "Let us not become desirous of vain glory," and so on. Second, he answers this question, saying, "it is excluded," that is, it has been taken away. 1 Kings 4:21: "and the glory is departed from Israel." Hosea 4:7: "I will change their glory into shame." Or "excluded," that is, it has been expressly made manifest. For the Jews used to glory in the glory and worship of the one God, and he says that this glory of theirs has been "excluded," that is, expressed through Christ, just as craftsmen who stamp out some image in silver are called "excluders," according to Psalm 67:31: "that they may exclude those who are tried as silver." But the first sense is the more literal. But when he says "by what law," he shows the cause of this exclusion. But because the boasting of the Jews was in the law, as was said above, it therefore seemed necessary that their boasting should be excluded through something of the same kind, that is, through some law. And therefore, asking by way of inquiry, he adds "by what," namely, has their boasting been excluded? But someone might believe that the Apostle meant that their boasting was excluded through certain legal precepts, by which certain greater works were commanded. And therefore, asking, he adds "of works?" As if he were to say: is it by some law of works that I say their boasting is excluded? And he answers that it is not, but through the law of faith. And thus it is clear that the Apostle here introduces a twofold law, namely of works and of faith. And it seems obvious at first that by the law of works is understood the old law, and by the law of faith the new law, through which the Gentile is made equal to the Jew. But there is doubt about this distinction. For faith was necessary in the old law too, just as in the new. Ecclesiasticus 2:8: "You who fear the Lord, believe him," and Psalm 115:10: "I have believed, therefore have I spoken." Indeed, even in the new law certain deeds are required, both of certain sacraments, according to Luke 22:19: "Do this in memory of me"; and also of moral observances, James 1:22: "Be doers of the word, and not hearers only." It must therefore be said that he calls the law of works the law proposed and written externally, through which the external deeds of men are ordered, in that it is commanded what ought to be done, and through prohibition it is shown from what one ought to abstain. But he calls the law of faith the law written within, through which not only external deeds but also the very movements of hearts are disposed, among which the first is the movement of faith. For "with the heart we believe unto righteousness," as is said here and in chapter 5. And he speaks of this law below, at 8:2: "the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus." Then, when he says "for we reckon," he shows the manner in which the boasting of the Jews is excluded through the law of faith, saying: for we apostles, taught the truth by Christ, reckon that any man whatsoever, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified through faith. Acts 15:9: "purifying their hearts by faith." And this without the works of the law. And not only without the ceremonial works, which did not confer grace but only signified it, but also without the works of the moral precepts, according to Titus 3:5: "not by the works of righteousness which we have done," and so on. Yet in such a way that this is to be understood as without works that precede righteousness, but not without works that follow upon it, because, as is said in James 2:26: "faith without works," namely, works that follow, "is dead." And therefore it cannot justify. Then, when he says "or is he the God of the Jews," he shows something that he had presupposed, namely, that the righteousness of faith extends commonly to all. And indeed he had earlier made this manifest by an argument taken from the side of the material cause, when he had said above: "all have sinned and need the grace of God," that is, they are sinners who must be justified through the grace of faith. But a proof that rests on the material cause alone does not suffice, because matter is not moved of itself to form without an agent cause. And therefore here he adds an argument taken from the side of the agent cause, that is, of the one who justifies, who is God. Below, 7:33: "God who justifies." But it is manifest that our God, in justifying, saves those whose God he is, according to Psalm 67:21: "Our God is the God of salvation." But he is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles; therefore he justifies both. Concerning this, then, he does three things. First he poses the question concerning the Jews, when he says, "is he the God of the Jews only?" This might seem so to someone because of what is said in Exodus 5:3: "The God of the Hebrews has called us." It must therefore be said that he was the God of the Jews only through the special worship shown to God by them, wherefore it is said in Psalm 75:2: "In Judea God is known"; yet he was the God of all through the common governance of all things, according to Psalm 46:8: "God is the king of all the earth." Second, he poses the question on the side of the Gentiles, saying: "is he not also of the Gentiles?" namely, is he God? And he answers, "yes, of the Gentiles also," whom indeed he governs and rules, according to Jeremiah 10:7: "Who shall not fear you, O king of the nations?" Third, at the words "for indeed," he manifests by a sign what he had said, as if he were to say: from this it is manifest that God is not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles, since indeed it is one God who justifies the circumcision, that is, the Jews, by faith; for as is said in Galatians 5:6: "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision." But as to his saying "by faith" and "through faith," according to the Gloss these are entirely the same; nevertheless some difference can be observed. For this preposition "by" [ex] sometimes designates a remote cause; this preposition "through" [per] designates a proximate cause. The Jews, then, are said to be justified "by faith," because faith was the first cause from which circumcision and the other legal sacraments proceeded; and thus faith justifies the Jews as a kind of primary cause acting through certain intermediate causes. But the Gentiles are justified immediately through faith itself. Then, when he says "do we then destroy the law," he excludes a certain objection. For someone might say that he was destroying the aforesaid law, and therefore he asks, saying, "do we then destroy the law through faith," namely from the fact that we say men are justified without the works of the law. And he answers, "God forbid," according to Matthew 5:18: "not one iota, or one tittle shall pass away," and so on. But he adds, "but we establish the law," that is, through faith we perfect and fulfill the law, according to Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." And this both with regard to the ceremonial precepts, which, since they were figural, are established and fulfilled by the fact that the truth signified through them is exhibited in the faith of Christ; and also with regard to the moral precepts, because the faith of Christ confers the help of grace for fulfilling the moral precepts of the law, and it also adds certain counsels by which the moral precepts are more safely and firmly kept.”

“Is he the God of the Jews only? - Do not begin to suppose that because you cannot be justified by the works of the law and God has in his mercy found out a new method of saving you, that therefore this mercy shall apply to the Jews exclusively. Is not God the maker, preserver, and redeemer, also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, as much as of the Jews; for all have equally sinned and there is no reason, if God be disposed to show mercy at all, that he should prefer the one to the other; since they are all equally guilty, sinful, and necessitous.”